of Divinity at Cambridge,1 and by Barrett, Fellow of Caius College, in the same University, and this called on the stage Dr. Whittaker, the Regius Professor of Divinity, who had been in early days intimately associated with the Reformers abroad and had strongly adopted the views of Calvin and Beza in their most objectionable form. Dr. Baro's views were as nearly as possible those promulgated by Melancthon. In consequence of the disputes between the two professors the University became divided into two parties. Seeing this, Dr. Whittaker proceeded to London to Dr. Whitgift, then Archbishop of Canterbury, and asserting that Baro's views were Pelagian he desired the archbishop to approve of certain articles which he had previously framed that the same might be put forth with authority for settling the disputes in the University. The articles were approved by the archbishop and by a few bishops and others, amongst them being Dr. Fletcher, Bishop of London, Dr. Vaughan, Bishop of Bangor, and Dr. Tyndal, Dean of Ely, who assembled at Lambeth, in November, 1595. Some of those who most strongly opposed the articles were absent when they were assented to, and it is thought that the archbishop himself did not entirely approve of them, but being an easy going man, or, as Milner, the Church historian, describes him, an "utter enemy to all constraint in matters of conscience and willing to indulge his dissenting brethren, as many of the other bishops thought, to a fault," and desirous no doubt of appeasing the discord at the University, assented to them. They were somewhat altered from the form in which they had been proposed, but, as approved of, they were as follows: 1. God from eternity has predestinated certain persons unto life and has reprobated certain persons unto death. 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the persons predestinated, but solely the goodwill and pleasure of God." 3. The Predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated to salvation shall necessarily be condemned for their sins. 5. A true living and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God jus 1 The four propositions for which Dr. Baro was prosecuted in the Vice-Chancellor's Court were "Docuit, Deum omnes et singulos, absoluta Voluniate, ad Vitam æternam creasse. "Voluntatem Dei duplicem esse, viz., antecedentem, et consequentem. Antecedente quidem Voluntate, Deum neminem rejecisse. Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus et singulis. "Promissiones Dei ad Vitam universales esse: et reque spectare ad Cainem et Abelem, Esavam atque Jacobum, Judam atque Petrum: et Cainem non magis a Deo fuisse rejec tum, quam Abelem, antequam se excluserat."-Strype's Life of Whitgift, p. 470. tifying is not extinguished, does not utterly fail, does not vanish away in the elect,1 either finally or totally. 6. A man truly faithful, that is, such a one as is endued with justifying faith, is sure, from the full assurance of faith of receiving the remission of his sins and of his everlasting salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men by which they may be saved if they will. 8. No man can come unto Christ unless it be given unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him, and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.3 These articles were sent to Cambridge, and Dr. Whittaker boasted that he had obtained the victory. It is related that, meeting the Chancellor of Cambridge, Lord Treasurer Burleigh, he acquainted him with what had been done, and showed him the articles. That great man, at once perceiving how dangerous it was to thus hastily determine in points of so much doubt and difficulty, strongly disapproved of the whole proceedings, saying that "he would make the authors of this business repent of it.' He was as good as his word, for he immediately repaired to the Queen and pointed out to her how, by the laws of the land, no man or body of men have the power to decree or determine on points of doctrine without the authority of Parliament and the consent of the Sovereign. He went on to explain to her what had occurred, and how a few divines had met together and decided concerning questions respecting which men of the greatest learning could never agree, adding that it was evident that those who passed the articles in question were of opinion and taught that whatever was done in human affairs, whether good or evil, was necessitated by the force of an immutable decree, and that this necessity was laid upon the very wills of men also. "Which things," said he, "if true, most sovereign Lady, in vain do I and 1 In the original draft, instead of "in the elect," were the words "in those who have once been partakers of it"--in iis qui semel ejus participes fuerunt. In the original draft, instead of "full assurance of faith," were the words "certainty of faith"-certitudine. 31. Deus, ab æterno, prædestinavit quosdam ad vitam, quosdam reprobavit ad mortem. 2. Causa movens aut efficiens prædestinationis ad vitam, non est prævisio fidei aut perseverantiæ, aut bonorum operum aut ullius rei quæ insit in personis prædestinatis, sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei. 3. Prædestinatorum præfinitus et certus est numerus, qui nec augeri nec minui potest. 4. Qui non sunt prædestinati ad salutem, necessario propter peccata sua damnabuntur. 5. Vera, viva, et justificans fides, et Spiritus Dei justificantis, non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit, in electis aut finaliter aut totaliter. 6. Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide justificante præditus, certus est plerophoria fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum, et salute sempiterna sua per Christum. 7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur, non conceditur uriversis hominibus, qua servari possint, si velint. 8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum, nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum traxerit; et omnes homines non trahuntur a Patre, ut veniant ad Filium. 9. Non est positum in arbitrio aut potestate uniuscujusque hominis servari. others, your majesty's faithful servants, hold long councils about what is needful to be done in any affairs and what may be of use to yourself and your kingdom, seeing that all consultation about things that necessarily come to pass is downright folly." The Queen was very indignant with what had been done by Whitgift, and ordered him to be sent for. The archbishop appeared and pleaded to her Majesty that it was not the intention of himself or his colleagues to determine anything without public authority or to make canons by themselves alone, but they had given counsel of peace to the Professors lest their private disputes should break out into public mischief. The Councillors who were present at the interview between the Queen and the archbishop pressed the latter hard, declaring that the convention itself was a crime, it having taken place without the consent of the Queen, and that it was far more probable that peace might have been better preserved had the bishops kept their judgment entirely to themselves. Why," asked they, were the assertions of the bishops sent to Cambridge but that they might have some appearance of a canon? Was it so much trouble to wait upon the Queen once about an affair that was debated for so many days?" The archbishop asked pardon for his rash proceeding, and promised that he would write to Cambridge that the Lambeth Articles might be suppressed. Dr. Whittaker died soon after this, and when his life was written by a friend of his, who desired to insert therein these Lambeth Articles, they were by authority suppressed. Whittaker was succeeded in his professorship by Dr. Overall, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, who certainly held views not in accordance with those of his predecessor. Eight years after the suppression of the Lambeth Articles, an attempt was made to have them declared to be orthodox and to get them inserted among the Articles of the Church of England. This was in the first year of King James I., at a conference held at Hampton Court on the 12th January, 1603. There were present Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury; Bancroft, Bishop of London; Matthews, Bishop of Durham; Bilson, Bishop of Winchester; Babbington, Bishop of Worcester; Rudd, Bishop of St. David's; Watson, Bishop of Chichester; Robinson, Bishop of Carlisle; Dove, Bishop of Peterborough; and others. Dr. Reynolds (supported by Dr. Spark, Mr. Knewstubs, and Mr. Chatterton), proposed that the nine Lambeth Articles, which he termed "the nine assertions orthodoxal," should be declared by that assembly to be orthodox and be added to the Articles of the Church. desired also that the Articles should be explained in some particulars and specially that the 16th Article, where it is said that after we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace, might receive the addition "but neither totally nor finally." This He was earnestly opposed by the Bishop of London, who had been present when the Lambeth Articles were approved, but who seems subsequently to have altered his mind, and by Dr. John Overall, who was then Dean of St. Paul's. The Bishop of London observed to the King that "very many in these days neglected holiness of life, presuming too much upon persisting in grace; laying all their religion upon predestination, saying 'If I shall be saved, I shall be saved,"" which he termed a desperate doctrine, showing it to be contrary to sound theology and the true doctrine of predestination wherein we should rather reason ascendendo than descendendo, thus, "I live in obedience to God, in love with my neighbour, I follow my occasion, &c., therefore I trust God has elected me and predestinated me to salvation; not thus, which is the usual course of argument: God has predestined and chosen me to life; therefore, though I sin ever so grievously, yet I shall not be damned, for when He once loveth, He loveth to the end." The King decided not to admit these Articles, not so much, perhaps, on the ground of his disapprobation of any of them but because he was unwilling, as he expressed himself, "to stuff the book (i.e. the 39 Articles) with conclusions theological."1 The Lambeth Articles, though rejected as additions to the Articles of the Church of England, found their way into the Articles of the Church of Ireland and were sanctioned on behalf of the king by Lord Deputy Chichester. The latter were drawn up by Dr. Usher, afterwards Primate of Ireland, then a professed Calvinist, though in later years alleged to be an Arminian, who not only put in the Lambeth Articles but indulged in some startling assertions of his own; as, for instance, that the Pope was Antichrist or the man of sin, that the power of sacerdotal absolution was no more than declaratory, and so forth. Thus matters stood at the time of the celebrated Synod of Dordrecht or Dort. In the year 1602, James Van Harmen, or Arminius, as he is usually termed, who, being a pupil of Beza, had been educated at Geneva in the Calvinist views, but had deserted them because he found that universal redemption was the teaching of Scripture and deemed this inconsistent with Calvin's and Beza's doctrine of unconditional decrees, was chosen Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden in succession to Dr. Junius. It must be 1 It is very well known that the translation of the Bible-the authorized version made by order of the King-was mostly done by men who held extreme views on the side of predestination. 2 It has been alleged by some that the view of Arminius and his followers is Popish, but the points debated between the Remonstrants and the Contra-Remonstrants in the Belgic Churches and between the rigid and moderate Lutherans in Germany have been as we have already seen as fiercely fought out between the Franciscans and the Dominicans in the Church of Rome, the Remonstrants and the moderate Lutherans in the main agreeing with the Franciscans and Jesuits, as the Contra-Remonstrants and he rigid Lutherans do with the Dominicans and the Augustines. F remembered that the Reformation had been introduced into the Netherlands partly by Lutherans from Germany and partly by Calvinists from France, but that the Belgic Confession, which favoured the Calvinistic doctrines, had, along with the Palatine or Heidelberg Catechism, been from about the year 1570 invested with public authority in the Churches of the Netherlands. Arminius's teaching soon brought him into collision with the upholders of the doctrine of the Geneva Reformer, by whose followers he was accused of heterodoxy. Parties were formed in the University of Leyden, and great animosity was evinced on both sides amongst the students. The disputes might have been arranged amicably had they not been taken up beyond the limits of the University. At the annual meeting of the Synods, in 1605, the class at Dort took up the cudgels and sent the following grievance to the University: "Inasmuch as rumours are heard that certain controversies have arisen in the Church and University at Leyden concerning the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, this class has judged it necessary that the synod should deliberate respecting the safest and most speedy method of settling those controversies; that all the schisms and causes of offence which spring out of them may seasonably be removed and the union of the Reformed Churches preserved inviolate against the calumnies of adversaries." This document gave grave offence to the professors at Leyden, and they sent a reply to the effect that they wished the Dort Class had acted with greater discretion and in a more orderly manner; that in their own opinion there were more disputes among the students than was agreeable to the professors; but that among themselves, the Professors of Theology, no differences existed that could be considered as affecting in the least the fundamentals of doctrine. This was signed by Arminius, then Rector of the University, by Gomarus, his most bitter opponent, and others. 'no The torch, however, had been put to the fagots and a flame was kindled throughout the United Provinces, with the result that, from that date, the breach between the two parties gradually widened, and in 1608, Gomarus, who but three years before had certified that between himself and Arminius there was dissention in fundamentals," distinctly declared that the difference detected in their opinions was of so great moment that he with the opinion of Arminius, should "not dare to appear before the judgment of God"; and unless a remedy were maturely applied it was to be feared lest in a short time one province would be engaged in contest against another, church against church, state against state, and citizens against each other. This unfortunately proved a true prophecy. In the heat of the disputes, on the 19th of October, 1609, Arminius died. His contention during his latter days had been that |